Agenda item

To determine an application for a Private Hire Drivers Licence.

The Licensing and Compliance Officer presented their report which requested members to determine an application for a Private Hire Drivers Licence.

In response to questions from the Panel, officers clarified the date of conviction for the offenses outlined in the report. 

The Driver addressed the Panel and said that the offenses in question were a mistake as a result of mixing in the wrong crowd when they were younger and that they hugely regretted it. They had been working in a public-facing role as a barber and was now looking for a fresh start. They already had an offer of employment and had passed all the necessary checks and exams.

In response to questions from the Panel, the Driver clarified the following:

·         They had been convicted of the offenses in their early 20s. Whilst they could not change the past, they were working to be a better person.

·         They had been employed as a barber for 16 years which had a lot of transferable skills to becoming a taxi driver. 

·         They had an offer of employment from an Uttlesford operator, however, would be based in Chelmsford. Officers clarified that this was permittable under law.

The meeting was adjourned between 13:27 and 13:41.

DECISION NOTICE

The matter before the Panel today is an application for a new PHV drivers licence. If successful the Driver has an offer of engagement.

We have had the opportunity of reading the officer’s report in this case, a copy of which has been served on the Driver, and we have also seen, as has he, the background documents annexed thereto including the application form and the DBS documentation supporting the application. We have also taken into account legislation, national and Institute of Licensing  Guidelines, and the Council’s own licensing policy, and have heard from the Case Officer and from the Driver.

Put simply, the Driver’s enhanced DBS check submitted to Uttlesford District Council Licensing Department showed that he had one serious conviction.

We are charged with determining whether the Driver is considered ‘fit and proper’ to hold an Uttlesford licence.

We start with the law, namely Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

S 51 thereof states:

51(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of the Act, a district council shall, on the receipt of an application from any person for the grant to that person of a licence to drive private hire vehicles, grant to that person a driver’s licence:

Provided that a district council shall not grant a licence

(a)  Unless they are satisfied

(i)            That the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a driver’s licence.

S61 goes on to state:

A district council may suspend or revoke a driver’s licence for:

(a)  That since the grant of the licence he has-

(i)            Been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty, indecency or violence: or

(ii)          Been convicted of an offence under or has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act of 1847 or of this part of the Act: or

(b)  Any other reasonable cause.

In the event of a licence application being refused an applicant has the right of appeal to a Magistrates Court.

The Council has adopted the Institute of Licensing’s Guidance on determining the suitability of applicants in the hackney and private hire trades. This is considered to be a statement of best practice and is founded upon the premise that the aim of local authority licensing of the taxi and PHV trades is to protect the public.

Para 4.39 deals with motoring convictions and states:

“Hackney carriage and private hire drivers are professional drives charged with the responsibility of carrying the public. Any motoring conviction demonstrates a lack of professionalism and will be considered seriously. It is accepted that offences can be committed unintentionally, and a single occurrence of a minor traffic offence would not prohibit the grant of a licence or may not result in action against and existing licence. Subsequent convictions reinforce the fact that the licensee does not take their professional responsibilities seriously and is therefore not a safe and suitable person to be granted or retain a licence.”

This stance is supported within the Government’s mandatory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards, para 5.14 of which  provides that:-

“Licensing authorities have to make difficult decisions, but the safeguarding of the public is paramount. All decisions on the suitability of an applicant or licensee should be made on the balance of probability. This means that an applicant or licensee should not be given the benefit of the doubt. If the Sub-Committee or delegated officer is only 50/50 as to whether the applicant or licensee if fit and proper, they should not hold a licence. The threshold used here is lower than for a criminal conviction (that being beyond reasonable doubt) and can take into consideration conduct that has not resulted in a criminal conviction.”

Further, para 1.3 of this Council’s Suitability policy is clear:

“If a licence holder falls short of the fit and proper standard at any time the licence should be revoked or not renewed on application to do so”

In reaching our decision, we must also be mindful of the provisions of the Council’s Suitability Policy, a copy of which is before us. It states that the overriding aim of any Licensing Authority when carrying out its functions relating to the licensing of Hackney or Private Hire Drivers, Vehicle Proprietors and Operators must be the protection of the public and others who use (or can be affected by) Hackney Carriage and Private Hire services.

We agree.

Appendix A is more specific, and we quote the relevant provisions here:

2.2 It is important to recognise that once a licence has been granted, there is a continuing requirement on the part of the licensee to maintain their safety and suitability. The licensing authority has powers to take action against the holder of all types of licence (drivers, vehicle and operators) and it must be understood that any convictions or other actions on the part of the licensee which would have prevented them being granted a licence on initial application will lead to that licence being revoked.

2.7These guidelines do not replace the duty of the licensing authority to refuse to grant a licence where they are not satisfied that the applicant or licensee is a fit and proper person….

2.9 A driver has direct responsibility for the safety of their passengers, direct responsibility for the safety of other road users and significant control over passengers who are in the vehicle. As those passengers may be alone, and may also be vulnerable, any previous convictions or unacceptable behaviour will weigh heavily against a licence being granted or retained.

More specifically, paragraphs 2.19 and 2.20 of the Council’s Driver Suitability Policy provide as follows:

“Where an applicant has any conviction for, or related to, the supply of drugs or possession with intent to supply or connected with possession with intent to supply, a licence will not be granted until at least 10 years have elapsed since the completion of any sentence imposed.”

“Where an applicant has a conviction for the possession of drugs, or related to the possession of drugs, a licence will not be granted until at least 5 years have elapsed since the completion of any sentence imposed. In these circumstances, any applicant will also have to undergo drugs testing at their own expense to demonstrate that they are not using controlled drugs”

We have had the opportunity of reading the officer’s report in this case, a copy of which has been served on the Driver and we have also seen, as has he, the background documents annexed thereto. We have read the reference supplied by his employer.

We are specifically reminded that the Rehabilitation of Offenders legislation does not apply to taxi and PHV driving, that we must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities whether the Driver is a safe and suitable person to hold an Uttlesford licence, and, unlike in other forums, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of any doubt. A history of drug abuse is regarded by this Council as being a very serious matter and even though these offences took place one related to the supply of a controlled drug. The sentence awarded reflected the seriousness with which the Court regarded the matter.

We have read all the papers before us with care and have listened to what the Driver has had to say. He told us that he was very young at the time and had been very silly. He had got in with a very bad crowd and deeply regrets what he did. He has never been in trouble since and at all material times he has been in work as a barber. He referred us to the testimonial included within our papers from his current employer and said he was really keen to change his career.

The primary function of this Committee is the protection of the travelling public. We take this responsibility very seriously. The legislation makes this clear as does the case law and all authority in the area. Our role is to determine whether or not a person is a fit and proper person to hold a PHV licence, and if we consider that he is not, then our duty is clear – we should refuse the application. However, we have carefully considered whether the Driver is a fit and proper person to hold an PHV driver’s licence and after careful thought we have decided to give him a chance. We therefore grant this application and the Driver will receive his badge and paperwork from the Licensing Department in due course. We  wish him well and hope he will not appear before this Committee again.